Barry Neufeld, the BC Human Rights Tribunal, Bill C-9 – and free speech

“A ruling by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal which imposed a penalty of $750,000 on a trans heretic is as chilling in its implication as it is draconian in its punishment.”

– Michael Higgins, National Post, February 24

“A B.C. school trustee was fined $750,000 by a human rights tribunal for arguing there are two genders. These are the same kangaroo courts empowered by the Liberals’ Bill C-9 and the Online Harms Act. I called on the Liberals to abandon their censorship agenda.”

– MP Andrew Lawton speaking in Parliament February 24, video on X.

“What a pity ! I’m arranging a theatrical tour of Canada this Fall, and now I won’t be able to risk doing any shows in British Columbia. I was really looking forward to coming.”

– John Cleese (Monty Python, Fawlty Towers …), writing on X.

A February 18 decision by the BC Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) has been roundly condemned, here in BC, across Canada and even well beyond our borders. Critics have condemned the substance of the findings, but also the enormous penalty levied.

Some have spoken up in favour of the ruling, including BC’s Human Rights Commissioner and the BC Teachers’ Federation. BCTF President Carole Gordon said:

Today’s decision is a huge win for 2SLGBTQIA+ rights. It affirms that discriminatory and hateful rhetoric has no place in our public education system – especially when it comes from someone entrusted with a leadership position.

James Kitchen, Neufeld’s lawyer, has stated that that they are appealing the BCHRT’s decision to the BC Supreme Court by way of a judicial review process. He expects it to be ready by mid-March and in court before the end of the year.

The ruling is significant in BC, but also provides ammunition for critics of the federal Liberals’ Bill C-9 – “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places).”

The decision

A February 23 article on CBC News describes the BCHRT ruling:

The tribunal . . . ruled that Barry Neufeld “poisoned” the workplaces of 2SLGBTQ+ staff members with a public campaign against classroom resources on sexual orientation and gender identity. . . .

[The ruling] says that for five years, Neufeld “publicly denigrated LGBTQ people and teachers and associated them with the worst forms of child abuse,” which created a discriminatory work environment for teachers in the district.

The ruling says he exposed educators to “repeated messages that their very existence was a threat to children, families and social order,” invoking “the most insidious discriminatory stereotypes and tropes” to denigrate their efforts to create an inclusive education environment for 2SLGBTQ+ students.

It says his statements, framed as criticism of the classroom resources known as SOGI 123, included warning that teaching children about diverse sexual orientations primes them for sexual abuse and “characterized trans people, especially children, as confused, abused, manipulated, sexualized, mutilated and deceptive.”

It noted that Neufeld denied his statements were derogatory and argued he was “simply targeting a set of ideas.” But the tribunal said it disagreed.

Neufeld’s response

Barry Neufeld responded to the decision on his website. Here is a portion:

I was a publicly elected School Trustee for nearly 30 years. I am concerned about protecting children from confusing and dangerous ideologies. My faith Is the motivator behind my opinions. But scientific logic is the driving force. . . .

I am sure they know I can never begin to pay this, but it sets a precedent, and in the future, no one else will ever dare to criticize their sacred Gender Ideology. So I must try to overturn this draconian decision.

We are applying for a judicial review at the BC Supreme Court, which is effectively an appeal to the ‘real’ courts. . . .

In a way, the enormously huge penalty is a blessing in disguise. If it had only been $75,000 everyone would have ignored it and thought Barry Neufeld deserved it for being so outspoken.

But three quarters of a million bucks shocked everyone into realizing that the BC Human Rights Tribunal is on a power trip, and there was even talk in the BC Legislature this morning about getting rid of the BCHRT. It has really stirred up international interest and sympathy for me as well as an increase of donations.

Jonathon Van Maren interviewed Barry Neufeld February 25.

One good bit:

So, has the CBC called you? No. CTV? No. Global News? Global? No. City News? No. Globe and Mail? No.

Go here to watch the 45-minute YouTube video.
Background

A February 25 ARPA Canada email update to subscribers describes the background of the case:

Barry Neufeld was a school trustee in Chilliwack, British Columbia. He was elected for three terms in 2011, 2014 and 2018, earning the second-most votes of the seven school trustees in each of those elections.

In 2016, British Columbia amended its Human Rights Code to recognize and protect people based on their sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI). In 2017, the province introduced SOGI 123 in schools to prevent bullying based on sexual orientation or gender identity, teach students progressive sexual and gender ideology, and create more LGBTQ-friendly facilities.

But Neufeld is a Christian and refused to promote this unchristian ideology. At school board meetings, in social media posts and through speeches, Neufeld called out SOGI as a lie that contradicts the reality of who people are and how they ought to identify.  

After the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation and their president publicly disparaged Neufeld for his anti-SOGI comments, even accusing him of hate speech, Neufeld filed a defamation case to defend his name. Neufeld’s lawsuit was ultimately tossed out by the Supreme Court of Canada, in part because it would limit his opponents’ freedom to speak out on an issue of public importance.  

Meanwhile, the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation and the Chilliwack Teachers’ Association filed a human rights complaint against Neufeld. They alleged that he discriminated against members of the LGBTQ community and that many of his comments amounted to hate speech under British Columbia’s Human Rights Code.

The ARPA update states there is no reason that Christian, or other, citizens could not be charged in the same way as Neufeld.

ARPA Canada (the Association for Reformed Political Action Canada} is “a grassroots Christian political advocacy organization.”

Possible effects of the ruling

The BC Human Rights Tribunal decision may have some unanticipated, or at least far-reaching, results.

• Amend BC Human Rights Code

BC Conservative MLA Kerry-Lynne Findlay (and candidate for leader of the party) stated on her Facebook page February 21:

A ruinous $750,000 penalty against former school trustee Barry Neufeld to be paid as an individual for distribution to a teacher’s union is outrageous.

As a lawyer and former Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Judge, I believe deeply in protecting human rights, and I know just how broken the BC Tribunal system has become.

Human rights protections must be applied with fairness, proportionality and above all with respect for freedom of speech – especially in debates over public policy.

She tweeted February 23 that she “pledges to save free speech in BC” and restore balance to the Human Rights Code by:

• Overhauling the exceptionally broad and discretionary Section 7 of the BC Human Rights Code to prevent infringement of British Columbians’ right of expression.
• Adding explicit, ironclad protections for freedom of expression that prioritize open debate, diversity of thought and the right of parents, elected officials and citizens to speak without fear of financial ruin.
• Amending the Code to emphasize in provincial law that free speech is a fundamental human right, ensuring the Tribunal can no longer weaponize “injury to dignity, feelings and self respect” to silence dissenting views on controversial issues.

Findlay and her fellow-MLA husband Brent Chapman attend All Saints Community Church in Crescent Beach.

The ARPA Canada email made a similar point:

[We] can use this opportunity to call on MLAs to rein in the Human Rights Tribunal’s power to quash speech. The Tribunal gets its powers from the Human Rights Code. That means MLAs can rein it in by amending the Code, especially by revoking the clause that prohibits hate speech. 

• Abolish Human Rights Tribunals

A more sweeping suggestion was offered February 24 on the Free Speech Union of Canada site.

Their Petition to Abolish Human Rights Tribunals in Canada begins:

To: Members of Parliament and Provincial Legislators

We, the undersigned, call for the immediate abolishment of human rights tribunals and commissions across Canada, or such significant reform as necessary to remove any restraint on free expression.

Recent cases have confirmed that these bodies, originally intended to protect basic human rights, have become instruments for enforcing ideological conformity and punishing dissent, particularly regarding matters of gender ideology.

Key concerns:

• Suppression of Free Speech: The case of Barry Neufeld, a former school board trustee, illustrates how tribunals now punish individuals for expressing views contrary to gender ideology. Neufeld was ordered to pay $750,000 to LGBTQ teachers for bluntly criticizing the SOGI 123 curriculum, a decision that serves as a warning to others that they can be financially ruined for their speech. . . .

• Modify Bill C-9

The BCHRT decision is already being raised as a cautionary example by those hoping to modify the proposed Bill C-9, which is intended to address the rise of hate crimes in Canada.

During a February 23 interview on My Canada, Ontario MP Andrew Lawton related the the Barry Neufeld case to the ongoing federal debate over Bill C-9.

He and many other groups have been making the case that hate speech is already illegal under the Criminal Code and that the proposed legislation removes protection for religious free speech.

They are urging the government not to remove long-standing safeguards that protect sincerely held beliefs expressed in good faith.

Noting that the Liberals have made some minor – and in his view inconsequential – changes to the proposed bill and sent it back to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (of which he is a member), Lawton said:

The backdrop of this [committee] meeting was very interesting because just a few days ago, you had the BC Human Rights Tribunal rule against Barry Neufeld, a school trustee in Chilliwack.

A lot of what he was saying – and by the way, I’m not endorsing, the totality of of what he said; there’s a lot that he said that I do think is actually harmful to people’s emotions and feelings – but they were using the same type of law at the human rights tribunal level, in that case, this idea of hate.

Now we are seeing a lower threshold in Bill C-9 and a removal of protections that are meant to actually safeguard religious conviction and political viewpoints. . . .

When we talk about willful promotion of hatred, we’re really just talking about the government’s view of whether you are saying something, uttering something into existence that is promoting hate against a particular group, whether that’s on lines of race, of gender, of sexuality, of religion – all of these things. 

But why it’s so important to deal with at this level right now . . . is that Bill C-9 changes the definition of hate and it lowers a threshold that has really been fine-tuned over many decades by the Supreme Court, that maintains a very high bar, with the understanding that you can actually have your feelings hurt and not have a criminal charge laid against the person who hurt them.

In Canada, you actually do not have a right to not have your feelings hurt, to not be offended, to not be humiliated, discredited. These are some of the words in the Supreme Court’s ruling. But what the law is now going to have is a lower threshold.

And when you have cases that are really near the edge, that are near the line – for example, to use that BC Human Rights Tribunal case – there were several statements that the tribunal said, these meet the definition of hate. There were some that they said these don’t meet that definition, but they were saying they came close.

So in edge cases, it’s actually very important to have very clear direction, to law enforcement and to the courts, and not end up in a situation where we’re capturing more speech in a society that should value – and I think needs to value – freedom of expression.

This is where I go back to the importance of having this debate in a way that doesn’t even take a position on individual issues. It’s simply to say that government should not be the arbiter of which scriptures you can cite and how you can express your religious convictions and your political views.

And that was why people were so alarmed by [then chair of the committee, Liberal MP] Mark Miller’s comments back in October that certain scriptures are inherently illegal and should inherently open you up to charges being laid because there’s no way you could even cite those in good faith. That’s the attitudes we’re up against right now.

And it’s why we’ve been so concerned by the Liberal government now, after saying they were consulting with faith communities, coming with a response that basically says the status quo is working so you don’t need to worry.

After the committee met again February 25, Lawton pointed out that Liberal members were not budging on their approach to Bill C-9.